2012 Ok this is an old camera in digital years (2005) but wow it still can take extraordinary images
LCD is rubbish, but runs all day on one battery and I've blown images up to huge prints & they are prefect colors are beautiful ! prefer the less digital quality to the mk 2 in some cases.
http://www.pbase.com/2bruce/image/145617651

I purchased a 5D for my wedding gigs. Before the 5D I used a 30D as main and 10D as backup. As everyone else says, color, sharpness, exposure and focus accuracy are some of the main things for me that are streets ahead on my previous cameras. Lens' I use are 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200L2.8/IS and non L's are 50/1.8 and 28-135IS < my copy of this lens is crap on my 30D and 10D, but it absolutely rocks on the 5D, it's like a totally different lens, great.
Had my 5D for about 4 weeks, haven't touched the other cameras I own at all since, the 5D is such a fun camera to use. I'm pushing 50 years of age, the larger v/finder is a blessing (again), it's like coming home lol. I will definitely be buying a second 5D before the new model is out......hmmm, maybe I should get another two more.

1. It now supports high-capacity CF cards.
2. It allows the latest lens names to be recorded in the Exif information of images taken.
3. It adds lenses that are compatible with the Digital Photo Professional 3.2 lens aberration correction function.

oh one more thing, I currently owning both Nikon and Canon equipment like nikon D300, D2Xs, D200, D70, 5D, 40D, 1DMKII/III, even some are newer model like D300, 3D MATRIX meter and lower noise performance but size sensor about same compare to D2Xs, but sensor chip made from sony, and same sensor as SONY A700 only nikon has own software and iso reduction inside of camera, at higher ISO also scrifice detail of pictures but 5D does excellent job of HIGH ISO. you won't reget if you can get 5D

I love 5D, if you are not die-hard looking for full frame, choose 30D, 40D which has similar performance with reasonable and affordable price, and faster continue shooting. I love 5d mainly because its size of sensor is similar compare to 1DS MARKI/II/III, the biger sensor size means lower noice at high ISO, forget 40D, I bought two of it and now realize this is bad investment but You do not need worrry about dust on sensor problem.

Guest

10-Feb-2008 08:26

The 5D is an amazing camera. I picked mine up last month and even it being 2.5 years old now it still remains one of the best dslrs to date!

Thats true I'm a Nikon user, I love it. Ive used other brand cameras but i didnt like them, NO OFFENCE. Nikon D3 & Nikon D300 have changed the users reviews thats y Nikon D3 & Nikon D300 are at the top. Nikon is the Best. (If the picture matters, the camera matters. At the Heart of the Image)

I bought a 5D in July, to upgrade from a 20D. To anyone considering doing similar - just do it! The 5D is a wonderful camera in terms of image quality. Granted i've seen a bit of vignetting here and there on occasion when the lenses are at larger apertures but it takes all of 30s to fix on the computer. There is NO cyan cast to the images unless you have a setting wrong somewhere or a faulty body - the onboard screen however has a nasty green cast to it and is not a good indicator of results. I use a 17-40L and 24-105L on it mostly and both give excellent results with wonderful tonality, especially for landscape work, although i've done a wedding with it too and it made a good job of that as well. Most wedding pros i've met recently have had at least 1 5D body as their main workhorse. AF is much better than on the 20D (dunno about other models) but still a little iffy in low light. Build quality FEELS higher and it's nicer in the hand. Don't chuck it around though - treat it like the expensive investment it is! Noise, although not non-existant at high ISO is certainly very low and probably only evident to pixel-peepers. Use the histogram lots - it's better than the 20D/30D at retaining highlights but still blows them too easily really.
The larger viewfinder makes a huge difference and is possibly the best feature. You can see the effect of filters better and you have a much better view of the scene in front of you - for any subject matter. It's certainly helped me get better results!
I still hate Canon's user interface though - even after nearly 2 years I can't get on with it (and WHY is mirror lock up not on a body mounted button? Durr!). For handling give me a Nikon any day of the week (or my old K-M 7D which was fantastic to use).
If you shoot sports or wildlife this is NOT your camera and it was NOT designed to be either. Get a 1D MkIIN or a MkIII now the AF is sorted. You'll also get more reach out of a long lens on those bodies, of course. The 5D was always aimed at landscape, wedding and studio work and it's fantastic for any of these subjects.
The detail recorded by the sensor is incredible. Talk about pixel density all you like but it does a better job than the 20D (not that i'm knocking the smaller body - it's good!). I've started to use Canon's own DPP software (version 3) for RAW conversion - it's better than photoshop CS2's own for colour, detail and noise.
In summary, Pros: Great images with superb colour and tonality (seriously great - especially from RAWs), Solid build, WILL improve your photography (possibly only a little, possibly a lot but i swear you'll get better) and will make it more enjoyable (that's my experience anyway!).
Cons: some vignetting at wider apertures (fixable quite easily), green tinge on the 2.5" screen makes it useless, AF can struggle in low light, Canon's un-intuitive handling, needs 'L' lenses for proper performance (and to get the best tonality), still blows highlights too easily, Not really suited to sport / wildlife, Colours can "block up" in low contrast lighting (but not as bad as the 20D).
Overall i'd give it 4/5 and highly recommend it - especially at current prices. The image quality alone makes it worthwhile - that is what you have to show people at the end of the day isn't it! For the replacement, Canon need to look at the Nikon D3 to see what a TRUE photographer's camera should be like (and I haven't had a Nikon for years so don't accuse me of bias!). Combine that with, say, a new 16mp sensor and you'd have a cracker of a camera!

Guest

13-Nov-2007 15:42

I purchased this camera a little over a month ago. I have since sold it, and switched to using Nikon. I can no longer support Canon, and this saddens me, for I grew up using Canon since I was 8 years old. Here is why I gave this camera 2 stars:

- Full frame censor: I thought this was a good thing? It is, and it isn't. Simply put, even Canon's "L" lenses won't provide even light illumination on the censor. Vignetting is a serious problem for the 5D. Like to shoot wide open, say at f/2.8? Think again, because you'll wind up with soft and dark corners every time. Canon's own media rep Chuck Westfall discussed this problem rather briefly in the June 06 issue of PCPhoto magazine. If you won't sharp results with a full frame, you need to stop down, a lot. Swing and a miss for portrait shooters looking to shoot wide open.
- Speed: 3 frames per second? Are you kidding me? This simply is not adequate for sports and action photographers. Many DSLR's offer 5 to 8 frames per second, so why 3?
- Build: This thing doesn't feel any different than the Digital Rebel. For this price, it should feel solid and beefy. The camera isn't even weather sealed like its big brother the Canon 1Ds Mark II. The build isn't terrible, but it certainly isn't impressive.
- Features: Where are they? The most needed features are buried deep in a menu. Don't worry though; Canon has included a "Direct Print" button on the camera. I couldn't believe this, what, is this thing a point and shoot suddenly? There are about 100 more important functions this button could have represented. If this is Canon's way of offering "a feature rich camera" as stated on their initial press release, then I am at a loss of what to say.
- Performance: Color rendition is terrible. There is a noticeable cyan cast to most images. Auto focus is quick, but inaccurate. Only 65% or so of my images showed critical focus, which Canon told me was, "acceptable." This was the same result from many a lens.

The list goes on, but I'm getting a little depressed listing all these faults. Is there anything good about this camera? Certainly.

- Resolution: The 12 MPs is amazing. Image quality, in terms of resolution is stunning. Micro contrast and sharpness is second only to the big Mark II. You will not be disappointed if you are buying this camera for every last pixel.
- Noise performance: There is none, almost. Shooting at ISO 1600 or 3200 is no problem with this camera. Noise levels at ISO 3200 look like that of a Nikon at ISO 400-800. This is a huge advantage of Canon's Full frame CMOS chip, as well as the resolution listed above.
- Wide angle: There is no crop factor with a full frame censor. This might appeal to film users who want to maintain their lenses true focal length, or to those who shoot at or below the 28mm range. It doesn't mean you'll be impressed with the performance of your wide angle lenses on this camera, but that 15mm fisheye will stay a 15mm.

This camera is a hit or miss depending on who you are, and what type of photography you do. I've noticed landscape and macro photographers seem to love this camera, and for good reason. They tend to shoot smaller apertures, focus accuracy isn't a problem, and neither is frame rate. Portrait photographers can go either way, but probably won't like it that much; poor color and light fall-off at large apertures are two very serious stumbling blocks. As for the wildlife and sports photographers, that's a big no (most likely). Slow frame rate, poor focus abilities, mediocre build, and the lack of the crop factor (your 500mm isn't an 800mm any more like it was on the 20D) will surely disappoint most of these shooters.

In my final thoughts, if you are thinking of an upgrade from a 20D or a rebel, the answer is probably no, unless you shoot exclusively landscapes, or macro, or you need the resolution for larger prints. If you are buying your first digital SLR, than definitely no. This camera is simply not user friendly. If you are considering it because it's a "full frame," think again. Canon has an excellent marketing campaign, but for every advantage of full frame, there is a disadvantage as well. Don't let my review stop you though, go and decide for yourself. The camera might suit your needs perfectly, but I feel for the overall market and majority of users, this camera missed the mark, and thus my low rating. Canon's got some homework to do, and they better do it fast.

The 5D is without doubt a great camera, coupled with the EF 24-105 mm lens, perfect for the landscape photographer, I also find it fantastic for bird photography.I still have my 20D which I also use.But the 5D worth every penny spent.

Have just upgraded from a 350D to a 5D and what a camera this is,definately has the WOW factor can not find anything negative to say about it and now I really do have full benifit of my wide angle lenses,great camera for anyone into landscape photography. Highly recomend this camera.

I love my 5D. I upgraded from the 10D some time ago and one thing I began to notice was that my 28-135mm non-"L" glass (which was perfectly adequate on the 10D) was producing shots that I considered soft. I recently upgraded to a 24-105mm "L" lens and I've been extremely happy with the results. Another thing that I have found with both the 10D and 5D is that I prefer the color saturation more when I shoot 1/3f to 2/3f under exposed.

Guest

26-Aug-2007 18:18

I absolutely love this camera!

Guest

24-Aug-2007 21:41

Outstanding camera, I've been using this great DSLR for about a year now, stunning images and outstanding results. Highly recommanded.

-
I was trying to compare this Canon to my Nikon D200 but couldn't compare the picture quality with compatible lenses on both. Here is my gallery with photo's of the D200, so please let me know what others think compared to some good Canon galleries?

Just bought 5D yesterday, after thinking about it for some months. Also have my 350D. I am using 24-104L and Sigma 75-300 APO with 5D. Weather is bad so no great chance to use it outdoors just now. However first test shots are impressive, improved colour rendition and impressive IQ overall. Most users seem to be very devoted to their 5Ds. Am looking forward to doing some serious scenery shots soon.

Guest

10-Jun-2007 19:00

Canon 5 D is my best camera so far. Not perfect, but very good. I wish it could handle the dynamic between highkey and lowkey better. But as long as you handle the exposurefactor with care 5 D gives you pics with a quality on par with classical medium format cameras. It´s far better than my ex-camera Canon 20 d, not a bad one in itself.
I also like the simplistic layout and straightforward design. Classical is best.

Now have a look at my pictures taken with this lovely camera. It´s about magical forests and industries in a funny way of coexistense.

i have jus bought this & shifted from film to digital & upto now i dont repent it :)

www.pbase.com/krunal25

Guest

24-Jan-2007 16:25

This is a great camera! I love the resolution and colours. I was a bit disappointed by the vignetting with wide lenses though....Still,I'm planning only to use prime 35mm and 50mm with this camera and there doesn't seem to be a problem.

The landscapers dream. This camera simply rocks in so many ways. It is light, detailed, easy to use and light. On my first outing at White Sands Nation Monument in New Mexico (USA), I had no real issues with the camera except it was not my older 1D MK II. That said, the wide angle ability, amazing low noise, brilliant color and exceptional edge to edge performance (yes I shoot mostly primes and they do great.)

Phenomenal camera the Canon EOS 5D. Just one simple beef, I wish that my Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM weren't so behind technology wise and leave such a horrible vignetting
problem on a 35mm sensor. To that end I got another camera to use w/ that lens, problem
resolved.

I have been using a Canon digital camera for the past two years. I upgrades from a 10D to a 20D and July of this year, I purchased a 5D. I have taken more than 6000 pictures with my new camera, and I love it! I have some sample images on pbase.
http://www.pbase.com/limestone

I love my 5D. Had it just a coupld of months now, and my only regret is that I cannot go out ans use it more. It has made me only bother with the best lenses and not use any other digital camera (although it has rekindle my interest in film) since buying it.

After having the 5 D for several months, I can say I love the ISO and how good 1600 ISO looks printed on my Espon 1800R ( 13X 19 " prints) I frame frame up 16 X 24" all the time for the Espon 4000 and they are clear as a bell. I full frame camera for less than half the price of Canon's Pro Model and way lighter for hiking in for Mountain Shots. Even 3200 is better than 800ISO on my old 300D 6.3 Digi Rebel. With a 1.4 or even 1.8 lens. Indoor low light shots are a breeze with no flash and you can live with a collection of lighter cheaper F4 lens int4ead of the F2.8 crowd.. Just my take on this.

Hmm, so many comments. I have a 5D, before that I had a Minolta 7D. A few random thoughts. I've seen brilliant pics from point and shoots and crappy ones from high end ... I know, cos some of mine are truly crappy :-) I think the 5D is an excellent tool, it is far more responsive in my hands than the Minolta 7D was, to this extent Canon have done a good job with their USM focus system. I've used Minolta 'G' lenses, the equivalent of Canon 'L's and not much in the actual image quality as far as I can tell. The Minolta's are heaps cheaper. I think Canon have been very clever in their marketing because they have convinced us that their stuff is 'the best' hence justifying such huge prices. On the 5D there is room for improvement.. I guess they will update and charge us more. For example.. Whats wrong with a flash? The 7D had one which was mainly used as a master for an off camera 'wireless' flash..to do this with the Canon I have to by a slave. Why a direct print button? Surely a dedicated mirror lock up would have been better. At the price point of the 5D, I can do without a higher frame rate but weather sealing should have been incorporated. I think Lou may be on the mark with some of his comments. Maybe we should not fall about in wonder at a new toy, rather we should be pressing the manufacturers to lift their game. Having said all of that, I really like using my 5D and I still have heaps to learn to get the best out of this machine. But if I had a Nikon, my pics would be the same.

Fantastic camera, I absolutely love it! I come from analog SLR and started digital SLR with a 350D to try it out. I have now bought the 5D and going back to full frame is like coming home!
Latest shot in my 'My Copenhagen' gallery is with the 5D:
http://www.pbase.com/flemmingbo

Guest

18-May-2006 21:45

I am a professional user who has been using a Canon EOS-1Ds as my main camera for two years (so much so that I actually sold all my well-loved Hasselblad equipment that I couldn't bear to see gathering dust any longer...). I bought the EOS-5D as a "back-up" to the 1Ds but have been using it as my #1 camera due to it's superior file size and truer color rendition. I shoot with Macbeth Color Checkers and have found the 5D's color to be truer throughout the range than the more expensive (though older technology) 1Ds. That, along with the huge, bright preview screen, push it to the #1 category in my book (at least, until the EOS-2 comes out this fall).

A note to those that wonder...I didn't get a EOS-1Ds Mark II, because for $8000, I didn't feel it represented a big enough leap over the 1Ds (that I had already spent $8000. on...)

I have this wonderful camera and am finding that jumping from a point and shoot that took great photos that I now need to l-e-a-r-n all the rest of the art of photography. This camera is capable far beyond my abilities at this time!! The joy is in the new world it opens before me and all that I learn from other users and their input to my results.

After more than 4000 shots on the 5D (moving from the 20D), I can say with certainty the below:
- The 5D does not have a highlight problem.
- The dynamic range of this camera is at least on par with other Canon DSLRs I have used (10D, 20D), as has been proven by several technical review sites and my experience shooting mostly landscape and some studio work. SHOOT RAW. See links below for test info.
- The 5D has challenged my best lenses, and will reflect imperfections in your lenses when you push them to the limit. Use a tripod with this camera when you can!
- If you do not need the wide angle and/or shallow DOF the 5D provides, purchase the 30D. The 30D will give you a more forgiving camera, lower weight, better long end resolution due to higher pixel DENSITY, faster sync, more FPS, and has all the advantages the 5D brings in terms of RGB Histogram, large LCD, and it costs less.
- Just a friendly reminder: Its the photographer, not the hardware. There are folks out there with $100 P&S cameras who catch stunning shots I walked right past
always learning.

Just Got My 5D and love it! I was shooting for Reality Outfit and the full frame 17mm really is nice indoors even though I bought it for nice wide angle Pano shots. Big Files and photos. I still like my 300 Rebel and now use them both with my short lens on the 5D and use my Rebel with the 1.6X crop to get a bit of reach on Deer, Sheep and Elk shots.

Guest

20-Mar-2006 12:55

Again what is so special, there are good images but state of the art? State of the art would require a high degree of realism and this camera is not in that league. Any differences between this and other cameras is down to settings and nothing more. Some of the comparisons I have seen on the web are joke, surely.

Canon EOS 5D blows most other digital SLRs out of the water. Its sad to hear so many negative comments about it here - but people need to remember that its a tool and a tool is only as good as the hands its in.

The picture quality of 5D is in most situations, at par with or even better than film. It has one of the best Dynamic Range to capture the widest range of shades, colours, hue and detail. People should learn to shoot and process RAW - they will stop complaining about blown highlights.

Guest

18-Feb-2006 21:16

I worked with Nikon D100, D70, D1X, sometimes D2X, but now i worked with Canon eos 5D. I think 5D is better than other cameras, and is a new point of reference in image quality !!!

I'm very disappointed with my d5, especially the burning of the highlights. I somewhere read here that you have to do a standard underexposure, but that also effects places in the picture that don't need that.
I somehow think my d20 performs better. Also an important point is that while you may get your full lens ability, full frame shooting also brings out faults in your lenses which you don't see if your using only the best part as your d10 or d20 do.
I thought this was a must have, too bad I didn't spend the money on a good lens or saved it for a camera that really steps it up.

Guest

26-Jan-2006 16:32

So this camera produces something special, is that right? I somehow don't think Canon will be abandoning the DX type sensor anytime soon.

Note that this ability to make excellent night shots are due to the larger pixelsize only. Compare shots in the dark from an older 3 mpix click & go and those from a modern 9 mpix and you find the same result. A 2.2 mu pixel is not able to recieve the same amount of light as a 7 mu pixel and this is a physical law one cannot encounter.
Concerning noise, it is easyer for a software to replace blue,green & red dust wit black spots as it is to write something in a burned whites protion where nothing has been recorded. What is there can be corrected, what has not been seen and recorded for sure not. Thus, no need to say that a 6.4 mu pixel of a 350D beats a 8.2 mu pixel of a 5D for many length when it concerns dynamic and writing information from dark to clear and especialy the shades of grey in a white bright portion. Here the bigger pixel of the 5D just resigns.
Compare this to a shot taken in the sun with a 2.8 focus and the same taken with a 16 focus. The result will be the same and the 16 diaphragm will for sure make the better shot. But when it gets dark .....

It is no doubt that the Canon 5D is and will remain the unbeaten "Queen of the Night".
If on one side the larger pixels tend to burn highlights, they have the advantage to eat light in such a generous amount in the dark that this camera could be pushed up to 6000 ISo and still make fantastic shots.
If I had to go for a typical night shot camera, the Canon 5D was certainly the one to look for.

Thanks for those comments William and Lou.I am gradually getting better and smoother results from my 300D by concentrating on technique and using a low ISO. I will put some results in a gallery shortly.

However it does seem that the 5D has a huge advantage at higher ISO ratings - there is quite a clear reduction in noise, and in fact many of the sample shots posted on pBase are taken at high ISO levels. However, perhaps the reduction in noise is not the larger sensor and higher MP count of the 5D but simply progress in manufacture and internal processing. In other words, this absence of noise and smooth image might well be reproduced in the replacement for the 350D and/or 20D.

There is no need to spend unnecessary money and get nothing more. You will never gain the same percentage in picture quality then the percentage of money you spend more for your gear. Cameras make only small steps towards better quality. On the other side big steps are made in direction of performance and picture internal rework. The 5D is not among those that have progressed, unfortunately. What Canon has done here is putting a camera with a full sized chip on the market at low price and to do this they just have removed all that makes a 1DSmk2 atractive and that's speed, resolution and overall quality.
Resolution is something that most people do not understand and there is a big difference in resolution and picture size. Go here and read what's about and you will probabely see a lot more clear when it becomes to talk about resolution and why a 5D is not a bargain or the better choice.
:http://www.pbase.com/lou_giroud/camra

Hatman, You have the correct approach. Maximize your current hardware and move to the next desired level. When you move too fast you can miss a lot. There are many facets to perfecting the art. You have named a most important step.

The 5D will take some getting used to, especially if like me one started photography in the digital age with the 1.6x crop factor. It's without a doubt a fantastic piece of equipment, I'm definately going to enjoy using it! Clean images at ISO 1600 is a dream come true :-D
http://www.pbase.com/mr_skee/eos_5d_from_10d_wow

Well, I'm not a Canon Man either. I have owned more Canons than any other camera but I'm always open to new products. Right now, my focus is to improve my skills with the 5D. It usually takes me longer than most. Here's an example of my work level since the last link provided. Comments and suggestions are always welcome...

I'm not a Canon man, but the samples placed so far, show some serious lack of the special skill and top-quality lenses necessary to push this camera to its potential. This is not a tool for the weak, because it will expose you. My impression is that in the right hands, it is probably the best, and for the rest, a 350d will do.

The 5D is one incredible machine. Ive had 'em all - Canon 1ds, Nikon D2h, D2hs, D100, D70, D70s, Canon D30, 60 and 10D - Fuji S2..The 5D is by far the best I have owned. Only a few shots up so far, test shots but there will be much more soon!

My humble opinion. No camera is the answer for every type of photography. Only owning Canons for many years I can only speak of them. The 10D and 20D are very versatile. They are good for many applications. The 5D offering better control a more detailed image and the low noise factor is a good addition to the two mentioned. I've done field work with the 10D and commercial shoots. But for commercial purposes, I prefer the 5D.

Every camera perceives whites differently, you just need to learn the hardware and the best metering for it. Whatever camera suits you is your obvious choice.

I have only had the 5D for two weeks. Here's a shot I took of a Hummingbird in flight and cropped it for a head shot as a detail test. If those birds would ever sit still I could get cleaner shots :^). It's not my best, I'll get there soon. For me, a new camera is like starting over...

This comment is absolutly not objective since I do not believe that Nikon is in an advanced state compared to Canon. If today I had to start digital DSLR Work at it's beginning, I would go for a Canon 350D in cheep Cameras and a 20D in better camera body quality.
The 20D is to my opinion the best and most reasonable solution at Canon and probabely one of the best DSLR cameras one can buy on the market at the moment.
For sure, if one had to go for perfection, he would need a camera for every occasion, best a 1DSmk2 for Landscape, a Nikon D2X for good light conditions and publicity works, a
50D for Night Shots, a Fuji S3 for portrait and so on. The reduction of pixelsize on the Nikon D2x has brought a much bigger basic picture in the range of 45 x 30 cm which means that the square pixels can be seen at a magnification of 450 to 500 % only. On a 50D they show up at 350%, on a 20D at 390% and on a 300D or Nik D70 at 220%.
The value on all those techniques is magnification, while at a DIN A4, all of those cameras produce the same good picture and it will be hard to see the difference without a magnifying glass. The handicap of all those file sizes is an amzing time loss at rework.
The disadvantage of smaller pixels is the problem with light entering into them and thus a camera like the Nikon D2X that i shoot at regular basis as well, is absolutely unusable beyond 400 iso. At 800 ISO the noise is that large that you need solid rework and image pixel loss to get an honnest picture. So, saying that Nikon is in advance is somewhat "overcating". Nikon's D2X makes for sure at the moment the better picture, but ceratinly not in any condition of light and the use of this camera is very restricted.
The larger pixels on the other side, like the ones of the 50D will "eat" too much light and thus need a basic underexposure to avoid hi-light burning, in the same measure that our "old" 300D and Nikon D70 & 50 and all other cameras based on the Sony CCD chip with 6 mpix. Thus, the Canon D50 is not a bargain in one way while on an other side it is a wonderfull performer in the dark and high ISO range.
The best solution would be a Fuji Chip with 10 mpix of big and 10 mpix of small pixels, in the way that you have a camera for every use in one body. Fuji has here the better solution despite of the fact the the Fuji S3 body is comparable to an old Ford T2 car with a recent Mercedes Engine. The camera is absolutely not usable. Slow shootin speed, 20 seconds to record a file to the card, battery gone after 50 shots, slow and lazy focusing, old values of the Nikon F80 body included and thus for sure not a step in the good direction as well. But, the chip makes amazing pictures if you know how to handle it.
Now, at Canon 50D and 1DS series, the problem is the full sized chip with all it's known problems. A digital chip is nothing else then a large glass plate and everyone knows that light which is broken in a glass prism at a certain angle will break down in the colours of the rainbow. This will make pictures fringy at the edges and the abberration is unavoibable. This is a physical law one can not encounter. The only way to get this out is the typical way camera treat all problems with fringing, noise and sharpness and this means simply software based "cheating", one of those techniques where Canon is a real master and here one needs to say that the digic processing of Canon is a few generations in advance compared to Nikon.
There's no secret and if today small high pixel chips make the deal and good pictures it is only due to software developpement and cheats that make it possible.
On the other side, all those who are well informed know about Canon's problems with selction of lenses with the full size digital. Canon is not alone on this problem, all mid format camera manufacturers have this problem and a Hasselblad or a Mamyia with a large 5.5x4 cm Imacon or Kodak back encounters those problems as well. A glass plated "window" has other problems in application with physical laws then a simple silver coated film when it comes to light dispersion. Mamyia's new 6x4.5 camera should be on the market since a long time but one can just see it one a picture yet. Up to 1 minute to record a picture of 180mb in size and the storage you need for that will let you think right away if you will buy one or not and certainly this is not a camera made for tourism purposes.
Canon had a lot of problems with lens selection and fringing resulting out of the tight angle of light falling in glass of the chip with wide angle lenses. I am on my side even
sure and I have made tests that many old conventional lenses do a better job with a small sized chip then some specialy "made for" lenses. Nikon sticks to the half sized chip and has actualy no intention to put on the market a full sized chip camera, despite of all roumours who say that they work on it. For sure, Nikon has made some to test but I do not think they will put one on the market before all those problems will be resolved. This is not a question of "prestige" and the pride to say "we have one", this is just a question of reason and before all those problems are resolved it is no reason to put a product on the market and use people as guinea pigs.
If now someone will tell me again that the Canon 50D is something new it will make me laugh since the D50, as I said before and as I repeat it again, is just an old hamburger squeezed in a new sandwich and thus for sure not a step forward in camera developpement. Note that i work with Canon Cameras as well, the 1Dmk2, the 20D and I use on regular basis Fuji's S3, Nikon's D2x, D1H and D70 which I prefer for it's wondefull ease of handling, weight and many features a real Pro camera can dream about. Many "Pro" cameras have a lot of features one realy doesn't needs and others which one would like to have are missing. The 1/500 th flash synch is one of them and only Nikon's D70 have that feature. In this point of view, the 50D is just an "old" 1DS-light and for sure not a step forward.
So, stop saying that this is an objection or jealousy of a Nikon user or any kind of similar useless things. My technical aknowledge of digital technology is updated on a regular basis and until I will "buy" a new camera, there will certainly a few more generations that have been launched on the market. Note that my Nikon F100 and my 6x7 Bronicas are probabely still as often in my hands then digital cameras in these days.
On the end they are unbeatable and make the "better" picture.

Just because 5D has some overburn in the highlight area, does not mean "5D is a step back to what the simple 3.5 to 4 mpix click n' go camera was 5 years ago in picture quality". The quoted statement is very very biased. It probably reflected some kind of envy that some Nikon users have towards Canon Digital technologies. We know Nikon is way behind Canon in the Pro Digital business. As a matter of fact, more than 60% of professional digital users are using Canon equipment. Full frame or high pixels does not guarantee the camera will produce high quality pictures. It is the contrary that the full frame requires the picture takers to be more skillful in the techniques, because it has a higher requirement of how to manage the light at the corners and the center of the picture. The overburn probably can be solved simply by attaching a Polarizer filter.

This reminder was unnecessary. I have read that the objection was in relation with the 1DS and I answered in the same way. This is not a reason "NOT" to compare the pixel size to one of the 1DSMk2. Go to DP-Review site and look in the report of the Canon 5D and you will find the pixel sizes of each of the cameras that are comparable and compare yourself.
The 5D has the same pixelsize then the 1DMk2. Even if the rework soft in the camera has made steps forward, there is no reason to say that the whole camera as such is a step in the right direction. Canon increased the number of pixels on the full sized chip of the 1DS to 16 mpix due to the problems they encountered with the fringing, the hi-light burns and the flares. So was there then a reason to put on the market the same problematic "light" product. Or do they have too many old 13 mpix chips left and laying around somewhere .......

It makes me kaugh again when I read "the 5D is less noisy then the 1DS" in high iso settings.
The reason is obviously the one that the pixel size determines how noisy it is in high iso rates. The 5D has a 25% bigger pixel size then the 1DSmk2 and it has also an allmost 50% bigger pixel then a D2X. I have written about this and linked to the dpreview site.
The bigger the pixel, the more light comes in, the better it becomes in high iso rates when it concerns noise. On the other side, the bigger the pixel size, the more problematic it becomes to overburn highlights and that is exactly what it does.
For the one who likes night shots the 5D might be a wonderfull gear. For daylight sghots it will cause a lot of problems and is for sure a step back in picture quality compared to a 20D. So id Adalberto thinks that this camera is another planet under all aspects, I leave him with his way of thinking. For me the 5D is a step back to what the simple 3.5 to 4 mpix click n' go camera was 5 years ago in picture quality. I bet that a Nikon Coolpix 880 or an old Canon G Powershot G4 makes a picture that is as good one then a 5D.
Technicaly and in picture quality the 5D is just now a piece to put in a museum and write on it " Canons No1 flop in history". Sorry people, but analyze first, look what pictures it makes and compare to others and you'll find out that it is sad to say that this camera is a step back in evolution and for sure cannot beat any other 8 mpix camera in picture quality. Note that the full size chip has never been and will not be so soon the ideal solution in digital photography. If the "game" was that easy to handle, every company would certainly have one on the market yet.

Seems to me that the 5D is the new budget, entry-level model for the Pro nowadays, whereas the 20D is the new Pro-sumer model for the hobbyist and amateur shootist. It's down to how much you want to pay, but as good as the 5D is, it's still a pretty costly affair for us who don't make a living as snappers. All the same it's a mouth-watering proposition, but out of 'my' league for the time being. I think the photos it takes are excellent...'and BIG! Noise levels at higher ISOs are terrific, but I'm gonna stick with my trusty 10D for a bit longer as it's more my scene, financially if not photographically speaking! :0) Why no built-in flash on the 5D though?! The mind boggles at the Canon logic.
Geo.

The person laughed really should laugh at himself. If looked carefully, downgrade referred to the packaging of the 5D compared to 20D. 5D does not include the EOS Viewer which shows the focus points, does not have the Photoshop elements, and the box is smaller than the one for 20D, even though 5D is a little bigger. In terms of the performance and the functions, of course 5D is much advanced than 20D. Rules of thumb, the later, the better in the professional digital cameras these days. In a lot of areas, 5D is probably much better than the original 1Ds, for one thing, 5D is much less noisy than the 1Ds in high ISO settings.

Nobody talks of the incredible BEAUTY of its images, assuming one is able to treat them well.
And assuming one knows what is beauty in general, pixels or not pixels apart... ;-))
PS
Don't ask me whas is beauty, please. I don't know.
But I can recognize it.
;-)

It makes me laugh when one says that it looks like a downgrade. IT IS a downgrade compared to the 20D.
The sensor is exactly 2.5 times bigger then the one from the 20D and it has the same surface structure, pixelsize and resolution as the D1Mk2. That one was an excellent speed performer but certainly not the best picture quality performer.
The large sized pixels make it sensitive to highlight burning and the large chip-size make it sensitive to fringing on outer picture zones.
I don't think that Canon made a good move with this one, especialy after the DS1 experience and politics to put just anything on the market at any moment will not pay off at a long time basis. If full sized chips where a bargain and easy to handle, Canon would certainly not be the only one to commercialize a few of them. Look and compare the pixelsizes and arrangements on dpreview.
In the technical part of the 5D, dpreview compares pixel-sizes and arrangements to other Canon and Nikon cameras.
:http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/ You can see there that a 5D and D1Mk2 have 8.2 mu Pixels, a 20D 6.4 mu and a D2X 5.5 mu.
For sure, the bigger the pixels, the better the nightshots, on the other side the more you blow the highlights. No wonder that a D2x is limited to 800 iso.
DP review tends to shoot same shots on same places with different cameras and here, just have a look in there galleries on the same fruit store shot with a Nikon D70, a 5D and a Nikon D2x. Then look the museum shots with planes, shot with a 5D and a 20D and compare them. You will be surprised.
Compared to the 20D at same chip size, the 5D makes a resolution of 5.1 mpix while the resolution of the 20D would make 20 mpix with same pixel arrangement in full size.
So, why step down to a four times lower resolution except if it is the satisfaction to ow a "full sized chip" camera.

Guest

02-Oct-2005 17:25

Canon 5D Sample did not impressed me my friend, what do you think ? I beleive I give a change to Olympus 3/4 Format, it is also Full Frame and Zuiko Lenses are Fantastic, When I compare the images I see that. But just please give your idea for 5D I think those hundred images are enough to start a talking about...

I brought 5D last Wednesday from B&H at New York online around 6 PM and then it was out of
stock in about two hours! for full price of course and plus shipping of $25.60. I got the camera yesterday and took some shots today. 5D is not that advanced than 20D except for the full frame which I like very much. The shutter sounds very different than 20D,
probably because it travels double the distance(the sensor double the size of the one on 20D). The package of 5D is simpler and smaller than 20D for some reason, looks like a
downgrade to me(no hardcopy "software instruction manual").
See my sample pictures athttp://www.pbase.com/kenny92/canon_5d_samples.

P.S., I pre-ordered from JR.com and had to cancelled it. They still don't have it.. I did
not see any other dealers have the 5D

Some people might jump on it, some will jump off again once they find out what's about. No doubt, this camera will make good pictures. But, what's one single reason to step over to a full size low resolution chip except the pride to ow one.
One knows that a full size chip needs a resolution of 24 mpix to get a result similar to argentic traditional photography.
Disadvantages are the time to record the picture. To get a good camera speed there is only one medecine which is buffer memory. The DS1MKII resolves this in a brilliant way and despite the fact that she is a wonderfull performer, she can't beat the resolution of a Nikon D2X. The half sized chip at 12.5 mpix equalizes the resolutuion of a 24 mpix full size. Here it is clear that the 5D does not has that resolution that will make "wonders" since full size 12.8 mpix is eaqual to 6.4 mpix half size. The result is a large sized pixel unit and a very high sensivity to burn highlights. The pictures shown here are excellent witnesses. So in advance, trie to underexpose right away. All common commercial cameras in half sized 6 mpix underexpose by factory presets just to avoid this. To my opinion the 5D is a bad alternative to the 20D when it comes to resolution. The chip is 45% bigger for just 25% more pixels. Calculate the loss yourself. Are there body and feature advantages to buy it : she's slower in shooting performance in sports, she has a lower basic resolution then the 20D, she will have the fringing problems encountered with all full size chips and common non digital type optics.
So, check and watch first, buy later.

Guest

28-Sep-2005 10:18

If you wanted a longer lasting shutter, move into a 1 series. Thats one of the benefits of it.

And replacing the shutter isn't that costly, and if you're shooting 100k images a year, then you could easily write off the cost of the replacement anyway. The camera doesn't just die when the shutter goes.

Hi Mac. Your point is well taken on the FF - still, for the bucks, the shutter should be more heavy duty. Perhaps, Canon will football the price a little and the 5d might become available in the 2500-2800 price range. At that price I might consider such a purchase.... my guess is that in about a year, the standard upgrade camera for the 20d will be FF, 12.8 meg for about $2000. Just a crazy guess.

One other thing about that shutter mechanism. The reliabitlity of the shutter mechanism for the 20d and the 5d is 100,000. So if you are a wedding/portrait photographer, for example, and you do an average of 100 events a year and lots of portraits on the side, you could easily take 100,000 shots in a year. It just seems to me that if you are going to pay $3000 or more for a camera, it should last longer.

A small note on the 5d. For an extra 50% in resolution (8.2 -12.8 megs) and just a couple of extra features but a slower burst, the price of this camera is more than doubled. Sounds steep to me. And to add insult to injury, the 5d has THE SAME basic shutter mechanism as the 20D. Not that the 20D is bad, but I would hope that a camera that goes for over $3000 should have a more heavy duty mechanism. Seeing how Canon does its marketing, I would not be surprised to see the same 12.8 meg chip in a 20D upgrade in about a year for a fraction of the price of the 5d.

The 1.0x FOV is the most attractive feature for the 5D, plus some upscale Pro features over the 20D, (can't wait to see the noise test on dpreview, I believe it will be impressive with the large pixel pitch). May be a little expensive for the amatures but sure is a worth it investment for the Pro's.

I am eyeing this...but it bothers me that it doesn't come with a pop-up flash. You can read more about it @ www.depreview.com It has pics and specifications and a comparsion chart to 20D. Part of me is glad I waited as I still have Canon 10d.